Lessons From Zimbabwe

Simon Black's Sovereign Man is currently covering a topic that will be near and dear to all Americans' hearts if the Fed gets its way: Zimbabwe. Attached are his most recent thoughts and observations from the (Zimbabwean) field, and a summary of the political, monetary and overal social chaos that currently rules in the latest (but certainly not last) country to succumb to hyperinflation. The lesson to be learned: prepare for anything. Because nobody in Harare expected to wake up one day and see all their wealth gone.

What you never hear about in Zimbabwe

October 18, 2010Harare, Zimbabwe

In the late 1800s, English businessman and serial eponymist Cecil Rhodes forcibly colonized a huge chunk of southern Africa on behalf of Great Britain that became known as Rhodesia.

Like other African colonies, Rhodesia was harshly segregated. By the mid-1900s, a series of black freedom movements began spreading across the continent, and one of the Rhodesian leaders was an educated, charismatic young man named Robert Mugabe.

Like Mandela in South Africa, Robert Mugabe was imprisoned for several years, a stint that did wonders for his political credibility. Upon release from prison, and with a little help from the international community, Mugabe became Prime Minister of the country.

He governed quite reasonably for the first several years, and if he had walked away from office early on, his legacy would likely be very similar to Mandela’s.

Addicted to his love for power, though, Mugabe stuck around too long and started derailing the economy. By the time he sent his military to go fight in the Second Congo War in 1998, his country was nearly bankrupt. This gave rise to the land theft and hyperinflation for which Zimbabwe is now so renowned.

Today, Mugabe is in his mid-80s and has ruled for decades. Despite the reputation that he has achieved as a ruthless and corrupt dictator, though, many locals still revere Mugabe for standing up to the whites and helping to win their independence.

The majority of the country, however, is ready to move on from Mugabe, and one of the leaders who has emerged is Morgan Tsvangirai (pronounced Changarai), head of Zimbabwe’s “Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party.

As you probably recall, Tsvangirai was himself imprisoned by Mugabe, and upon release, he too became the country’s Prime Minister through a 2008 power sharing agreement that was brokered by Thabo Mbeki of South Africa.

The thing is, most Zimbabweans don’t think he’s going to last. Mugabe has not honored the power sharing agreement, effectively preventing Tsvangirai from governing. Rather than dealing with the issue directly, though, Tsvangirai has gone back to the international community for help.

This makes him look very weak in Zimbabwe, and the country’s institutions have little loyalty or respect for him. Once Mugabe finally kicks the bucket, many locals expect a power struggle among his top lieutenants, and they don’t believe that Tsvangirai is strong enough to win.

Regardless, western media have been quick to anoint Tsvangirai as man who will lead Zimbabwe into the future, and investment funds have been even quicker to move capital into the country.

To be clear, the worst is likely over for Zimbabwe. Mugabe already destroyed agriculture and chased the mining companies away, so the economy is now trying to find its legs. Most of the ingredients for success are there, though– a solid pool of labor, massive resource wealth, and available capital.

All Zimbabwe really needs is a reasonably functioning government, and this is the bet that foreign investors are making. Right now it’s a fairly crowded room– there are a LOT of investors taking this bet. Given the post-Mugabe future that many locals expect, though, the bet could be painful at first.

In the long run, I think the country will succeed… but for now, it does provide an important lesson.

We often talk about the boiling frog analogy– like a frog sitting comfortably in a pot of water that’s being slowly brought to boil, people let their political leadership slowly, gradually take control over the country… until one day they realize they’ve boiled and can’t even recognize the place.

Throughout the mid-1980s and early 1990s, Zimbabwe was a clear example of the boiling frog analogy; Mugabe imposed lengthy states of emergency and frequently turned the military against his own people. In the same period, he closed schools, banned homosexuality, and began small redistribution of farmland.

Perhaps the starkest example is what happened to Zimbabwe’s currency. And no, I’m not talking about the period of hyperinflation when a suitcase full of cash bought you the week’s groceries, I’m talking about what happened afterwards.

You don’t ever hear too much about this.

In early 2009, the government of Zimbabwe finally capitulated– they realized they simply couldn’t print enough zeros in order to keep up with the hourly price changes in the country… and in the blink of an eye, they did away with their currency.

Today, Zimbabwe no longer has its own currency. The country effectively deals in cash only, in foreign currencies. Merchants take whatever they can get– US dollars, euro, South African rand, etc.

When the government abandoned the currency, though, there was no warning. Anyone holding Zimbabwe dollars was robbed of their savings overnight– there was no national program to convert Zim dollars into something else, the currency simply became unusable.

Quite literally, people in Zimbabwe woke up in the morning and found whatever savings they were holding in cash and bank accounts was no longer a valid medium of exchange… and some folks lost everything.

I think there is an important lesson here: We can all observe the warning signs, and while there’s no need to rush into panicked reactions, measured preparations are critical.

As a perpetual optimist, I’m certainly not predicting the end of the world or some sort of Armageddon… but it would be irresponsible to ignore the current and future threats to our capital, our liberties, and our families’ safety.

The warning signs are there, the problems are identified, and the solutions exist. All that’s required is the will to act– to get educated about the tools that are available and put a plan together.

I’d really like to hear from you– what lessons do you see from Zimbabwe, and what sort of plan do you think is right for you and your family?

i don't know about that happening to us...i know i know the whole "it cant happen to us thing" is pretty ridiculous but just look at bears track record so far this fall, we had a horrible august and september and october have been an absolute meltup, i except QE2 to just continue this meltup, there is no way the elites will let this system collapse.

"There is no way the elites will let this system collapse." That is what the saps always say, and once the money printing gets serious, the system ALWAYS collapses--the elites having moved into gold and foreign currencies in advance.

The overthrow of white rule in Rhodesia resulting in Zimbabwe is a different topic. Suffice to say it did not work out well for the white farmers and ranchers, or the majority of blacks living in the Country.

Mugabe and Co. took a wealthy, functioning country and turned it into the hell hole it is today. An interesting poll of older residents would be "Are you better off now under "black" rule or when you were under "white" rule?"

In July, 1944, during World War II, economist John Maynard Keynes of England, and Harry Dexter White of the United States, organized the United Nation’s Monetary and Financial Conference (or Bretton Woods Conference) in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to lay out a plan for stabilizing the world economy. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was signed; and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) and International Monetary Fund were established. In the early 1960’s, the American economy began declining, and the international situation became unbalanced again. On August 15, 1971, President Nixon announced a new economic policy. The dollar was devalued, and its convertibility to gold was suspended. He initiated a 90-day wage price freeze, stimulative tax and spending cuts, and placed a temporary 10% tariff on most U.S. imports. Japan and Western Europe were pressured into relaxing their trade barriers, in order to give the United States more access to them; and Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were requested to decrease the flow of goods and textiles into the country. These moves offered relief to the country’s economic woes, but was an indication that Nixon was retreating from the global policies which were formulated during the 1960’s.

The rational on 60/40 on cash to PM's is that if the dollar plunges say 50% gold and silver will most likely triple. So far you are ahead. If the dollar limps along without major setbacks, then no worries.

Im only telling you guys this cause I like you. Get a sailboat, some fishing tackle, few crab traps, and a star to steer by. Its a big ocean out there. You could be heeled over for weeks before seeing a soul, with nothing but to see God in His splendors, in the text that nature renders. Leave the riots, prisons and ghettos to the fiat fetishists.

People do of course need security and arbitration services, but those can be provided easily through a free market by entrepeneurs seeking profit opportunities and striving to satisfy consumer demands. And a free market yields services at better prices and better quality than monopoly services provided by a bunch of corrupt government thugs in exchange for "protection money".

In practice, all the government can do is steal 30% of your paycheck and then fail to actually protect you when someone mugs you on the street. And even if they could protect you, it is logically a farce for a government to claim to be protecting your property rights while at the same time threatening to kindap or shoot you for not paying subscription fees.

Really, the only time governments are better at doing security than freely acting individuals is when the governments are busy securing people in ovens.

As empirical evidence, note how Somalia's people are a lot better off now that they aren't human chattel under the yoke of a bunch of violent sociopath politicians:

"Law and, consequently crime, are defined in terms of property rights....Also, since the law and crime are defined in terms of property rights, the Xeer is unequivocal in its opposition to any form of taxation.[6]

"on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under government"

"Under statelessness life expectancy in Somalia has grown, access to health facilities has increased, infant mortality has dropped, civil liberties have expanded, and extreme poverty (less than $1 PPP/day) has plummeted. In many parts of the country even security has improved. In these areas citizens are safer than they’ve been in three decades (UNDP 2001). Somalia is far from prosperous, but it has made considerable strides since its government collapsed 15 years ago."

you have two choices, a reasonably strong govt that is responsive to the people, of the people, by the people or cede power to someone else, warlords, gang leaders, mafiaso's, dictators, oligarchy, cartels, one party rule or whatever you call what China is, royalty etc...rich elites banksters calling the shots can be just as tyrannical as a king, roving gangs can be just as dangerous as undemocratic govt....

either people band together in a union and enact laws democratically and enforce them uniformly, equally for the most common good and common wealth, or they let some one else take charge. Corrupt govt is a problem. That does not mean anarchy, no govt is not a problem. What is your alternative to a local police force beholden to the local people? Private security companies? What happens when the richest guy in town hires more security than everyone else and then murders his business competitor and walks away with his security guys at his side.

Two choices: strong govt responsive to people or someone else, other than the people, in charge. I would rather unite and reclaim power under the control of people than disband, let everyman fight alone and let some thugs take over.

>What happens when the richest guy in town hires more security than everyone else and then murders his business competitor and walks away with his security guys at his side.

Then they will be viewed as gang of criminals, and they will be ostracized. If they are professional security companies, they will lose most of their customers to other eager providers. I certainly wouldn't do business with criminals and pay for their criminal acts.

But of course you're only talking about 1 measly death. Unfortunately, when the US causes 1 million innocent Iraqis to die, I can't just stop being a customer of their "protection" services.

In other words, your argument seems to be that anarchy must be bad, because bad people would do bad things under it. But somehow you completely overlook the bad things, like mass genocides, that governments orchestrate. You are so worried about the splinter in your neighbor's eye, that you don't perceive the log in your own.

"Then they will be viewed as gang of criminals, and they will be ostracized. If they are professional security companies, they will lose most of their customers to other eager providers. I certainly wouldn't do business with criminals and pay for their criminal acts." The richest, most well armed guy couldn't take over? The richest guy can't bribe enough of the young strong men in town, or other private security companies to look other way when he is doing bad, or to work directly for him. Private companies and private parties are immune to corruption, only govt employees can be corrupted? And if all the other people, who don't like one rich guy calling all the shots, get fed up band together and hire a tough "private" security guy and they task the private "sheriff" to enforce laws equally, objectively for all as a way for the most of the peaceful, law-abiding types to agree to support this private sheriff guy...is that essentially a govt? Who decides what sheriff is doing? Everyone that pays his salary. What is the union of the majority of citizens hiring the sheriff but semi-democratic govt.

What happens in failed states like Afghanistan and Somalia, ungoverned territories of countries run by drug gangs etc? Often strong men and war lords, or drug kingpin takes over. And they do make excursions into other lands, cause trouble outside their own domains, while picking on their own people too. The only hope the people have, is to band together and create some sort of union to have strength to repel bad man. Now, is that to say, that govt itself can't become tyrannical, not at all, or is that saying the govt can't wreak havoc on others outside its borders, not at all.

I don't overlook the evil governments have caused, I'm well aware of it and frequently mention the genocide and slavery that founded the US in my blog commits, its just that I do not see democratically elected govts as the ONLY source of all evil in the world.

Just like someone saying religion causes all wars, problems in the world. Some truth in that, religion is often used as way to foment masses to fight when they otherwise wouldn't bother. There are religious pinnings to many conflicts, Israel/Palestine, No Ireland, Crusades, even US "manifest destiny" had some religion in it. But was US vietnam war about religion? Did W convince US to attack Saddam/Iraq because of religion...not really. Hitler did not get people to fight for religion. Was US civil war about religion.

In same way, you seem to see everything bad due to govt. While I see that people organized thru regimes can do great harm, I do not see formalized democratic govts as the only source of harm and not any source of good, just as I can see both bad and good in religion and can see religion not only source of all bad in the world even tho admittedly, religion has caused much bad.

If everyone is man for himself, or tribe for himself, strong man can most always do take power. Many of the best, most representative government/regimes this world has known have be created because loose, alone people got tired of getting run over by marauders or oppressed people threw off oppressor and replace with a strong union, that could stand against marauders or oppressor in a way that individuals, or un-united tribes could not. Early Islam created such a union that created peace within and had an army to protect from outsiders, and the success of the union expanded those that found it better to part of union than outside it. Iroquois nation that our constitution was partially based on had a similar evolution, unionize to stop brutal killing amongst people and to provide safety and security from the outside.

Genocide and slavery can and has been committed by all forms of people. War lords to democratic governments Did the mongols raid and imperialise because they had government, rather it seems the raided and imperialized that led to them forming a govt. Did the vandals and Visigoths attack Rome because they formed a government?

It is far more common in these days of corrupt and tyrannical government to see the evil of supposed democratic governments than to consider the problems of the flip side of not having a government, both are issues, and in my mind its a question of moderation...enough government to police, keep peace, ensure liberty of individuals from harm that others might wreak if unrestrained while not too much strength to govt that it becomes unresponsive to people, becomes tyrannical or corrupt. But no govt, IMO, is not a viable solution.

"Then they will be viewed as gang of criminals, and they will be SHOT".

fixed

"Fortunately, when the US saves 1 million innocent Iraqis..."

fixed again

2004 AP:

"Since the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown in May, 270 mass graves have been reported. By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed sites climbed to fifty-three. Some graves hold a few dozen bodies—their arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies".

What's most important to the Zimbabwe story is their insistance that the nation's currency cannot and should not be controlled by banks.

When their Supreme Court returned stolen property to the heirs of slaves, it set off a massive backlash from whites all over the globe "warning" of dire consequences should this type of power-shift catch on elsewhere.

To be clear, the land was stolen by white settlers, and the black farmers were taken hostage and sold into slavery. 400 years later, the court ruled that the land was illegally taken and the descendents of the slaves were the rightful owners of the land.

Imagine the United States Supreme Court ruling something similar?

Foreign capital fled Zimbabwe, and the Bank of International Settlements started a regime to break the government. By resetting exchange rates to ridiculous pairings ... the Zimbabwe government became blackballed on the international economy. Food prices soared leading to social unrest and the starvation of millions. Whose at fault, Mugabe or the international bankers?

Mugabe survived the challenge to his rule by use of the military to protect the fragile new government he wanted for his country. Much the same way the United States CIA executes American citizens that it considers to be an enemy of the state. All governments seek to retain power.

Is Mugabe a thug? Perhaps. But he has demonstrated that a nation can survive the bloodbath of currency manipulation that paved the way for Iran to challenge the BIS and now China and Brazil look poised to end dollar hegemony within the next few years.

I live in America. I love all the blessings that come from the victories of two world wars and two centuries of ingenuity and innovation. The central bank and fractional reserve banking are at the heart of dollar hegemony ... it is the silver spoon I use to eat with.

Zimbabwe's story is one of tragedy and brilliance. When history is written, many will forget the challenge to the international banks unless the dollar collapses and the people rise victorious from the last remnants of slavery's legacy on the world.

This is the real story of what happened to Zimbabwe. Not the fairy tales told by the corporate press and many posters on this forum. The story is also being played out in many countries where European immigrants refuse to yield back power to the indigenous populations. Mugabe may be a thug who keeps his clan in power but he is not responsible for all that ailes Zimbabwe. The West has done everything it can to cripple Zimbabwe's currency thus causing the hyperinflation.

The big fly in the ointment of the European and American plans to cripple Zimbabwe and retake control of it's vast resources is China. The Chinese have ruined the plans of the West to take control of Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea, Myanmar ...etc. China uses it's soft power to cut commodity deals with these countries. As always the Western powers try to use military or banking/currency means to steal resources from the third world.

" As always the Western powers try to use military or banking/currency means to steal resources from the third world."

Yes, and it is presented as 'free trade'. As Chevez said a while back "We want fair trade, not free trade". The IMF and world bankers plunder rescources and turn developing countries into debt slaves under the guise of 'free trade'.

thank you, these things are always more complicated than the stories MSM reports. What is common knowledge about Weimar and Zim hyperinflation is very limited, the complete story is much more interesting, muddy.

The West is excellent at picking and choosing thugs. The treatment US media gave Saddam, after he invaded Kuwait, not before, could be given to almost every leader in the world...including the West..the way we think of Saddam gassing the Kurds is the way some Pakistani thinks of us using drones to assassinate suspects in their country, on very shaky at best evidence.

We could say China is a thug because of what they have done to ethnic minorities like Uyghars, Tibetans, and we would be right. We are thugs, we complain about Iran's leader attitude to Israel, trying to get nukes, stealing elections but when Iran had a good nationalistic, democratically elected popular leader, Mossadeq, who was doing exactly what he was elected to do, demanding much higher return on foreign oil companies taking their oil, the CIA among others took him out and installed the Shah. Where Iran be now if we had not done that.

A Televangelist close to W says Hugo Chavez should be assassinated. Why, because he is a thug, not really...are we really concerned their elections might not be totally fair, what, does China have fair elections, Russia, do we say their leaders should be assassinated? No, someone is told to sully Chavez to his followers because of his economic policies.

Its funny no matter how much of a thug you are no one cares until you fight Western bankers. But even if you are not a thug, you are called out for assassination if you make a challenge to Western economics.

So whenever someone in West says something is bad because a thug is doing it, I tend to look closer and see what real story is.

I want to know from this author who exactly had any wealth in the form of Zim dollars when they cancelled the currency... after Mugabe defaulted on foreign debt by hyper-inflating, how did anyone with cash have cash wealth left?. What, did some one buy Zim TIPS and was the only person that could accumulate Zim dollars as quickly as the inflated?

ZH itself posted an article about how Zim was doing okay now as it was a country without debt, private or public. Hyperinflation defaulted everything, it was painful jubilee. That is what we should be hearing about. What was the good and the bad of that. Was that better than 30 years of austerity paying off IMF? What does that do for future security?

People, lets think, not let Western elite and banksters tell us who to love and hate, what works and doesn't. Most countries, including US, have done thuggish and tyrannical things, that does not make these things right, all people, all over the world should be fighting tyranny, corruption, but we also have to be grown up and see the bad in all forms and not just selectively.

You are either very cynical or deeply stupid. Mugabe's confiscation of legally acquired property was a travesty of any modern concept of justice. The fact that these working farms were given to Mugabe's cronies ("the descendants of slaves" lol, you fucking idiot) who then ran them into the ground was not a glorious chapter in the emancipation of Africa, but a fundamental reason why Zimbabwe collapsed. Zimbabwe went from being a self-sufficient, food exporting nation to an economic basket case, and no amount of historical revisionism by the cynical or the ignorant will change that.

so outside treatment of Zim by banksters had nothing to do with the fate of its economy?

Should the descendants of thieves have anymore right to the country's wealth than descandents of slaves? Both their ancestors worked the land hard all their lives, both their ancestors have long been in the country.

Traditiaonl property rights were ignored and wiped out by military force when a group of foreign ethnic minorities took over the land from native people, then and only then, property rights become sacred? Why do we have to respect property rights established of 200-300 years ago when whites arrived and took land but not respect property rights from 400 years ago? Do we just respect the most recent theft, over the slightly older traditional assignment of land of native people. By that standard, Mugabe's taking is most recent. Mugabe took the land in no different way than Rhodes, so I guess we should respect Mugabes taking as much as Rhodes, no? If we shouldn't respect Mugabe's taking, why should we respect Rhodes' taking? If we should respects Rhodes taking because it is long established, why did Rhodes get to ignore naitve ownership long established before him. Or, if we are just respecting property rights of those that worked the land for generations, who worked harder, longer on the land, the white owners or the black slaves/servants?

Not saying Mugabe was right, not saying redistributing land recklessly was not distruptive but there is more to it than just that. There were distuptions from foreign influence, banksters etc.

It's true, war was declared on Zimbabwe's economy by the banksters and their brethren in England. Thank God for China. Imagine the Rhodesian masters reinstalled, colonialism put back in place, during our times? Outrageous yet that is what some morons here are arguing for.

Whites conquered Zimbabwe 120 years ago, not 400. Slavery was NOT instituted, nor was land seizure. The only seizure that took place was the seizure of Royal property, which was illegitimate anyways (no government should own such property). Black farmers were left alone, and their land was bought up by whites. They used their more advanced knowledge of horticulture to make Zimbabwe into the breadbasket of Africa.

Honestly, your dumb shit collectivism is what is destroying the world. If you had your way, everyone would be dead because no-one has any right to any land, because everyone conquered and was driven from every speck of land on the planet at some point or another in their history. But no, I guess when you have a nice, simple identifier like skin color, you can just use that and presume that their ancestors stole the land. Likewise, I guess that I can just assume that any black person I see in America is a drug dealer, because that conforms to my prejudice.

If you want to convince me of something, calling me ignorant would be better than dumb shit moron...there is much I am uneducated in, and if lacking in facts, more than happy to learn them but I don't think I'm dumb or a moron...I'd be eager to learn more...

So almost all land owned by whites in modern, say up to the 80s, in Zimbabwe was taken gradually by buying it fair market value from original owners, natives?

How were the borders of the country established? Was the land owned collectively, by families or was there established cultural rules regarding various rights to land (rules about who could hunt, farm, water rights etc...I know there was many traditional ways around the world to deal with property rights that differed greatly with Western methods, what was enforced in Zimbabwe?)

You are right on this, I know almost nothing about Zimbabwe, I was just questioning the logic of selectively enforcing property rights, and thru back some contradictions.

I do know in South African there was massive, straight taking of land fairly recently (within last 50 years) from traditional black homelands along, say nice coastal lands which was then transferred to white developers, and these people were re-settled in horrible inland camps/squatter cities with little amenities and no just compensation for land taken

Maybe what was done in Zimbabwe in terms of whites settling was way better than what whites settling everywhere else did, I'd be eager to learn about this.

But everywhere else I have read up on, including US, land was taken from natives in all sorts of unjust ways, and there was little to no compensation. Yes, people signed contracts at point of gun, or yes, treaty was signed by a chief who actually did not represent people that owned that land, etc...My great grandparents "homesteaded" land in North Dakota that is to this day, right along side an Indian reservation....which was "given" to to them simply by them settling it, of course it was not an option the Indians had to simply live on land and it automatically became theirs.My great grandparents had the only slip of land surrounding a lake that was not on Indian reservation, so their land was the only part around the lake that was not still in the hands of the native people of that area and I remember my grandmother and her siblings saying when they were kids on the homestead...they complained that the Indians acted like they owned the lake :).

And I am no collectivist, that you assume this is an interesting tell about you. I am simply questioning what seemed to be uneven, inconsistent respect of property rights and the over-simplification that all harm to Zimbabwe was all due to Mugabe.

Also, I'm not so sure a foreign army occupying a country and taking land is suddenly okay if the only land taken is royalty's land. Since royal people shouldn't have had land, foreigners should instead? If US took all of Saddam's palaces and gave the land to Americans settling in Iraq because "that land shouldn't have been Saddam's anyway" I don't think Iraqi's would think that was right. And if Russians cam and took British royalty's lands, and gave it to other Russians, don't think even the most ardent anti-royalists would agree that made it okay.

Bullshit. The best farmland (that exporting powerhouse you so laud) were in the hands of white colonialists who had stolen it during the time of Rhodesia. Why shouldn't they throw them out and seize it?

Hey, your ancestors seized the house you live in. Imma gonna seize it and give it back to the Indians--not the indians that used to live there, but indians that happen to be my friends, because all whites are the same, and all indians are the same. If you resist, I'll shoot you.

What's that? You legally have a right to live where you are? Riiiight...

see that's the point, its way more complicated than either side is admittingly, I do think all remaining indigenous people should be far better compensated, we left them with the worst snips of land and when they found out there were valuable minerals on that bad farmland, we stole those too.

What Mugabe did, in my mind was not right, but neither is it right that the descendants of thieves should get all the booty forever while the descendants of natives get the worst of it and still get discriminated against and mistreated, this is true in Africa and US.

Ok, wow, you certainly are living in a dream. You DO KNOW that Zimbabwe wasn't settled by whites until the 1880's, right? At last count, this was significantly less than 400 years ago, though I may be posting from somewhere inside of a black hole, I can't really tell.

Number two, Slavery was never legal in Rhodesia, nor was the seizure of land based on who seized land from anyone a hundred and twenty years ago. It was based solely on race. If you were white, you had (and have) no property rights--period. Can you imagine if blacks weren't allowed to have property rights in this country?

Wake your as up. Mugabe is a two bit Hitler who turned the breadbasket of Africa into Hell on Earth, and it most certainly wasn't because of "international bankers". If anything, HE took advantage of THEM, as they were printing Zimbux to buy foreign currency, an act which greatly enriched him and his friend, and triggered hyperinflation.

And finally, you think the central bank provides you with a silver spoon? What fucking planet are you from?

A few countries in Africa could hope to earn the label of breadbasket and Zimbabwe has never been one of them.

There were some farmers who lived well from their production and their connections in wealthy countries, for sure.

But nowhere Zimbabwe was a breadbasket. That is not because some farmers live well from cash crops that the country is a breadbasket. Breadbasket countries are not eligible for decades for food aid programs as it was the case for Zimbabwe in the 20th century, this well before Mugabe. A bit less publicized though.

Must have been a slow day. How is it connected to the US? The article is very loose about it. Does it even quote the name of the US once?

So simple manipulation by the poster here.

On the contrary, the Zimbabwe example tells us how the US situation is so different from Zimbabwe and how the US situation can endure for much longer.

What's happened in Zimbabwe is plain: the guys emitted currency and people outside the country told stop, they would accept no longer the currency. Which stopped the transfer of wealth from the outside to Zimbabwe. Which insulated Zimbabwe. Which left the Zimbabwean population as the only responder to the amount of zimbabwean currency emitted. Thus hyperinflation.

Now the US has very different assets, like a world wide military network among other things, which warrants that any newly amount of emitted money meets real wealth coming from the exterior. Any new US trillion will buy gold, oil, food, water etc taken from 'non US' assets.

Through this scope, there only can be hyperinflation in the US when there is hyperinflation in every other corner of the world.

At present times, the US is simply able to transfer for free any amount of wealth from the exterior to the US main land.

"At present times, the US is simply able to transfer for free any amount of wealth from the exterior to the US main land."

What you are suggesting is simply theft. It may work for a while. But, unfortunately, USA faces currency speculators (including within its own country), has an anemic domestic economy, and cannot print money without gravely damaging its own structure of production. The US cannot, no matter how powerful its military, control the subjective valuation of the dollar throughout the entire world. A currency deemed by the people as unsuitable will be ejected from the sphere of commerce no matter how much the government struggles.

Also, historically, empires don't wind up working out the way you describe.

By commodities you mean oil and its pricing in dollars. I have been following the oil producing states and their plans to replace the dollar with a basket of currencies and gold. You really think people want toilet paper as opposed to real money forever? I think not.

The time for the dollar as "reserve" currency of the world is ending. Used to be the US was a powerhouse of wealth and trade; alas, it has been looted and it is no more. The majority of world GDP is now produced outside the Western world and fiat paper is NOT a tradition there (thank God!). Capital controls are coming along with trade disputes, the G7 is a barbarous relic and soon the final grand collapse of the farce that Western "civilization" has become will explode mightily for all to see (whipeeee).

By commodities, I mean commodities (maybe not all of them though, just covering my ass, you know, in case somebody stands with the lawyer attitude "all the commodities but this one, so, you are a liar!")

China wanting to buy gold from Ghana has to pay in USD. You cant escape the USD when it comes to buy commodities around the world.

You really think people want toilet paper as opposed to real money forever? I think not.

Because you think that people are not aware of the situation? That is the fish and the net. The US net is strong and the fish is entangled within.

People do not want to be the one holding the bag. The US forces them to be in that position.

Zimbabwe has vast resources that are coveted by the West. When blacks retook power, the West declared war on Zimbabwe in an attempt to force it to let the West retake control of the resources. China has stepped forth to rescue Zimbabwe from the Western powers. The GNP of Zimbabwe has been increasing since China came to the rescue.

The West will now attempt to trigger a civil war inside Zimbabwe by sending arms and cash to the clans opposed to Mugabe's ruling clan. It will be Sudan all over again where the West sent money and arms to to rival Sudanese clans and instigated the civil war in Darfur.

lets face it, western powers constantly meddle in Africa due to its mineral and ag wealth, whenever a good leader arises, we kill him or bribe him/her.

We let Norway or UK have their mineral wealth free and clear, we let Saudi have it mostly but with some conditions, but Africa, be damned if we ever let Africa be.

You are an ignorant racist, only way to prove you are not is to spend a month or two reading history unbiased history of one or two african countries since colonial times til now...the brutality, and constant messing of the West in Africa is almost unfathomable.

Do you think Western powers had nothing to do with Rwanda genocide, just read a little.

Now that little biatch Bill gates is "vaccinating" the population after HIV decimated the population. Ex-CIA agent (high up) John Stckwell says these banksters were experimenting with diseases as bio-weapons and that HIV origins should be investigated in this light. (youtube it).

Funny, most of the time, when a Western nation declares war on a weak nation like that, the war doesn't last for 40 years.

Maybe, just MAYBE, they were destroyed by their own government and their shitty policies? For an anarchist, you sure do seem to be in support of shitty African dictators. Make no mistake--Mugabe IS a dictator, just the same as if Obama was in his 12th term and received 100% of the vote every time.

Stop looking for conspiracies everywhere. The only conspiracy that exists here is the conspiracy by Mugabe and his cronies to loot his country (the last official act of any government).

Mugabe is a bad guy, dictator, and West is meddling in Zimbabwe, both are true. We always pick and choose when we care about thugs and dictators and when we don't, it always coincides with Western elite interests.

You'll never be able to compaire a African country with a western country.

I'm not being racist, but those guys are all still in exchanging nuts and pebbles for food. And as change, they'll rape the woman.

My ex girlfriends family had a safari park in South Africa, and every time we went there, I was amazed how medieval these people still are.

There just isn't a link with western people. There really isn't.

Most black people there are like children. Really, they have the intellect of 12 year olds. Which is relax (they'll only work if the need food) and super dangerous (when somebody tells them you are sorcerer or a witch, you're dead).

Ah yes, the old 'white man's burden' saw. The Brits used it in India until Ghandi came along and proved that not only could Indians govern themselves, they are very good at turning capitalism to their own advantage.

Time to wake up take an honest look in the mirror.

The Mexicans are coming, and they are reclaiming the land stolen from them by 'white US settlers' by simple demographics.

That Zimbabwe is prospering with Chinese fair trade is proof positive that Western 'free trade policies' were nothing but extractive resource looting, courtesy of western bankers, CIA instigated coups, and so called 'free trade agreements'.

Here is an interesting link for you.

"Smedley Butler on Interventionism

-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC."

The Indians are on equal footing with the Europeans in Evolution, they where on pair with the ancient Egyptians in building temples, their pyramids equal those of the Egypt in complexity, as you see I am not a while supremacist, I think Europeas, Indians and Asians are on equal footing, 'sadly' Africans are not, I do have reservations about Arabs and some Causacian subgroups, its not about bigotry but scientific facts.

If we cant be honest about the achievements of each Culture, Race and Religion and treat everything equal than its nothing more than Cultural communism leading to the same outcome as political/economic communism

where did European culture, knowledge come from...the south...read some freaking history, it was wooly haired, dark skinned people in ancient Egypt that taught Greeks everything they knew, where did Heroditus gets his history, Euclid get his geometry...did you know anything about ancient Zimbabwe? Read about it, What about Mali, Timbuktu...now a symbol of middle of nowhere, dry outreaches of empire it was once a great society also. The first European visitors to many places in Africa and Americas would comment how those places were bigger, more densely populated, more prosperous, more civilized, better run than their cities back home. Shoot, the Europeans were so backward at the time, they didn't even understand the technology acheivements of these other peoples, to the point it is just in the last few decades are figuring out what amazing technology they had that was lost when their cultures were wiped out by military conquest, disease.

In the 1300s, you could have easily made the case that Europeans were the most backward of all and genetically inferior by just observing their state compared to rest of world at the time. Remember, there were cities in Africa and Americas much more advanced, populated and learned than any in Europe at the time. Arabs retained ancient Roman and Greek knowledge (that had originaly come from mid east, asia, africa) and passed it back to dark ages Europeans, to the point the learned class in Europe all spoke Arabic.

"where did Heroditus gets his history, Euclid get his geometry" - errrrrn they invented it ? (or am I naive?)

"(that had originaly come from mid east, asia, africa)" - I'd agree on the East and maybe North Africa but Sub Saharan Africa I don't think so

BTW. I am inclined to believe that there was some sort of 'Atlantis' a pre-historic civilizazion that spanned the Globe and that brought cilivization to all corners of Earth, so that could explain advanced structures in uncommon places (but that's only a theory)

some greeks literally sailed to Egypt, studied for a number of years there and then went back to Greece and said, "Hey, look what I invented". This is well known, commonly accepted fact known in academic circles by now, but hushed up...we would rather keep thinking white people have always been smarter than everyone else.

Not to say there weren't some smart Greeks, there were...every people have had their periods of learning and flowering and their periods of backwards times, see Europe - Rome, dark ages, vandals, visigoths, Renaissance. But that is not all of history, similar patterns have happened on all contitents, and learning was often replanted in a land by foreigners that perserved learning elsewhere...to this extent, Africa got learning, knowlegde back from Europe who they originally gave it to, Arabs and Persians retained and gave ancient knowlege to Europe in dark ages, then later Arabs and Persians studied Europe to bring knowledge home, and so it goes. Renaissance in Europe due to knowledge from Arabs, Persians, and Chinese passed on to them and due to wealth accumulated by enslaving Africans and genocide and resourse taking in Americas, with a lot of knowledge and money from rest of world, smart Europeans who had been stinky warring tribes a few centuries before were the height of world civilizations...proves genetics has nothign to do with it.

Buy farmland (and a farm house too) - buy silver and sell fiat in all forms - get the fuck out of cities and get self sufficient. Drill a well. Go photovoltaic and hoist a wind turbine. Get a wind-up watch and a wind-up radio. Buy chickens, sheep and cows. Buy guns and ammo.

Back in the 19th century and further back, racism was natural even among educated elites. Why would a steam-age European, encountering a stone-age African, not assume that the African was genetically inferior? Even the English and then American abolitionists were mostly racists, they just believed slavery was against Christian morals.

It took time for it to become widely understood that the seemingly racial differences were nurture not nature. The catastrophe of Nazism did a lot to lay the idiocy of racism bare. The Georgian Stalin and his Russian generals played Hitler for the fool that he was, and mopped up half of Europe.

Since then, there's been an overreaction against racism. The instinctive, Darwininian human inclination to discriminate among people according to how closely related those people are to oneself has been demonized and labeled as racism. The instinctive human inclination to stereotype groups has been demonized and labeled as racism. Any dislike of cultural characteristics associated with any cultural group, even when real or perceived membership in that group has very little to do with race, has been demonized and labeled as racism.

Of course everybody believes their cultures are better than others - otherwise, why would they stick with it and pass it on to their kids? Assuming that someone with certain racial features has cultural characteristics that one dislikes is not racism, it's folk wisdom. Racism is the belief that other races are genetically inferior.

That all said, there are still a fair number of people in our day and age who are genuinely racist. As you've probably noticed, these people tend to be idiots. After all, every race has its genetic failures. Azannoth, you are ours.

You know what you are correct, Africans are NOT genetically inferior they just Evolved in a different direction theri direction of Evolution does not involve higher inteligence, so yes youre scientifically correct in saying they are not inferior but you can't say they are equal either

>so yes youre scientifically correct in saying they [blacks] are not inferior but you can't say they are equal either

How do you even talk about "science" when white and black races are undefined. Do you define an Italian person as white? Or a Mexican person? Is Barack Obama really black? I know people that would give different answers. And is Barack Obama "inferior"? If Barack Obama is inferior, why is he president and not you? At the very least you must cede that he is a charismatic, rhetorical genius.

Perhaps you meant to qualify your disparaging statements about races with "on average", but I didn't see that. But of course, you can't even average two people's intelligences or athletic abilities since such things are not linear, superposable quantities. They aren't even quantities at all.

Honestly.. I'm blindingly white and I'm pretty worthless outside of my specialized areas of knowledge. Were I a beach lifeguard, I would be a good melanoma study case. In a lot of areas of life, say like tying my shoe, or answering the phone, the average black person is probably superior to me. But, fortunately, the division of labor means I can still make a living.

If you're going around saying you're superior to others, well, good luck with that.

">so yes youre scientifically correct in saying they [blacks]" - Hmmmm I said Africans and I meant Africans, why do u insist on using the term 'black' is it because it fits your racistic prejudice ? Is it more difficult to refute my claims when I use the word African and not black ?

the first encounters of Europeans with rest of the world was not of hi-tech meets stone age...we have white washed history, there have been great civilizations and periods of high technology and learning on every continent and from every people. When the very first Europeans visited Africa and Americas, those contitents had civilizations just as advanced as Europe's. What did Paris of 1500s have on Aztec's Mexico city? nothing, both were advanced in different ways. What did Aztec's have on Teotihuacans that lived and died long before them? Africa had many great civilizations in Zimbabwe, Mali etc..and yes Egypt...we try to act like Egypt was not a apart of Africa but look at the busts of Egypts original pharoahs, as African as can be...why are all the wide. African noses busted off of many Egyptian statutes? because white conquerers could not fathom blacks had created such a superior civilization, ever...they even busted the decidely African nose off the Sphinx.

It's extreemly difficult to debate ancient history because all of it was rewritten by Christians to conform to their world view(and this is ongoing to this day, everything that contradicts basic Religious beliefs is suppresed), but youre correct I would say, only that we don't really know the origins of those civilizations

Interesting. I assume you have official documented proof that egyptian statues had their noses busted off because some white conqueror couldn't 'stand' the fact that blacks had created such a superior civilization? I also assume you can direct us to concrete proof the colored murals on ancient egyptian tombs were all black-skinned people?

Aztecs vs 16th century Europe? Gee, I dunno, how about Michael Angelo's paintings in Rome vs. those in the Aztec ruins? Or did Michael Angleo and the builders of 16th century Europe take their cues from African/Central American art and architecture?

You seem to assert that history is mostly a 'white-washed' tale spun by conquering hordes of white barbarians. I'd be interested to know then where you are getting your 'real' history from. I'm willing to read.

Lastly, I would simply add that conquest, oppression and slavery are most assuredly NOT the sole proprietorship of 'white' or 'european' peoples. The very same 'advanced' dark-skinned cultures you extoll practiced it throughout their histories.

You can agrue all you want about ancient pyramids, but what is undeniable even by the polical correctness crowd, is that ALL modern achievements (Electricity, Steam Power, Combustion Engine, Atomic Energy, Modern Physics and Mathematics, Internet) where the work of 90% white Man 9% White women and maybe somwhere along the way some1 of different skin colour, OK ok in later phases there where significant contributions from Indians and Asians too

"ALL modern achievements (Electricity, Steam Power, Combustion Engine, Atomic Energy, Modern Physics and Mathematics, Internet) where the work of 90% white Man "

Why does it matter? A world full of black people would invent the exact same things. If your race happened to accomplish these things first, while waging imperial wars, enslaving, committing genocides, and dropping fusion weapons on others, is that much to be proud of?

Plus, white people invent all kinds of rubbish like Marxism. As a result, millions of whites were needlessly murdered in Europe. Is that "superior"? FWIW I'm greatly impressed with the Somalian Xeer. Despite being ancient, it is conceptually and logically far superior to the savage Western legal system based on all kinds of fraud, violence, and subjugation.

Anyway, I think your bickering about which race is superior only serves to inflame others. I would rather reap the benefits of others' labor, through the Ricardian Law of Comparative Advantage, no matter what their skin color happens to be.

"Why does it matter? A world full of black people would invent the exact same things." - Give them another 1 Million years and I am sure they would, give a monkey 5 million and it will go to the moon too

when phoenicians, darked skinned people from the south sailed up to Britain, what do you think they thought of the state of European development, if you sent people from African cities and American in the 1200s to check out the tribes of northern europe, what would they have said.

They would have said "Holy shit, metal! I've never seen anything like it! It's the skin of the Gods!" and "Holy shit, machinery! I've never seen anything like it! It's the hand of the Gods!" and "Holy shit, crossbows and siege engines! I've never seen anything like it! It's the fist of the Gods!"

Yes, the Aztecs did have an advanced stone age society, but they were barbarians who slaughtered the peoples of nearby villages to appease their Gods (who hungered for human flesh for some reason). Remember, Cortez only had a hundred men and a few cannon. They did NOT conquer the Aztec civilization by themselves, they lead an uprising against a brutal dictatorship. This is almost always the case in all "white conquests". Those people who are not under a brutal dictatorship, or exist in a state of tribalistic warfare do not fall to whites (see China, Japan), while those that are are conquered. This happened in America, in Zimbabwe, and in India. Also understand that in the case of India, it was more a moment of weakness, and in the case of Zimbabwe, a middling period of weakness. In the case of America, it was a long term period of weakness, with the Mississippian civilization having collapsed a hundred years before the arrival of the whites, and with Latin America being under the long rule of a series of hated militaristic tribes, ending with the Inca and the Nauatl.

have you read 1491 and other such recent updates we have on pre-columbian Americas, most of the weakness the Europeans encountered was due to disease and break down in society resulting from that...a bit like a bunch of Chinese in the mode to conquer showing up when black plagues had just wiped out a bunch of Europeans and the Chinese were immune to black plague

Azannoth: Why not try counting up the number of generations since the average north European started living better than the average rural black African. Probably that was no earlier than the 15th century, but I'll be very generous and say it started around year zero, a couple hundred years before the Goths got organized enough to start troubling the Roman borders. That's about 80 generations ago. How many important positive random mutations do you think have occurred in 80 generations? Sorry, but the evidence is overwhelming that what we are dealing with here is the random negative mutation that makes you susceptible to dumbass theories.

moneymutt: You're partly right, but not in a way that does anything to refute my points. Yes, there were some encounters between roughly equally advanced European and black African cultures, but not after the medieval era. Yes, there were plenty of encounters in ancient and medieval times between European cultures and more advanced Asian and north African cultures. By the way, not that it matters, but the Carthaginians were not dark, just typically tan Mediterraneans.

But none of that changes the fact that Europeans emerged starting in the 1400s as by far the dominant culture. Europeans of the 1500s obviously had a lot that Mesoamericans didn't, such as ocean vessels, steel and gunpowder. There's always something to be said for every conquered culture, but the conquests speak for themselves. Some north Africans almost kept up with the Europeans for a while, but by the 19th century the Barbary white slave traders were just hit-and-run pirates.

I still think there is much lost knowledge in ancient technology we STILL don't even recognize. I'm a civil engineer, no one I know can explain how well made those Inca stone structures are...they are still there in Cuzco, other places, after 500 years plus of earthquakes, water etc and they fit tight as tight can be, even with irregular faces fitted perfectly...didn't know what people raved about til I saw it with my own eyes and compared to how difficult it would be do today with modern drills, saws and hydraulics...they knew things we still don't know, I'm convinced of this, their technology was not inferior, but different.

There are dams in Sri Lanka that are quite ancient, that were sited in geologic advantageous ways that Western geologists just figured out 50 years ago, and on and on..

Europe's technology advance over all others came from inheriting world knowledge just as two hemispheres were colliding, and from being brutal enough to really conquer and use the loot and booty to get real rich, build universities etc..China sailed the world before Europe, but did not stay and conquer. China outpaced Europe in technology, sailed around Africa before Europe ever did. The ancient mariners of the Mediterranean could sail the length of that sea without stopping, the distance from West Africa to So America is not much different, and there are signs of trade, connect long before Europe...I even saw an elephant frieze on building at Chichen Itza in Yucatan...no elephants in America.

ugg boots london I saw something shocking uggs london on my way to work the other day. uggs new york While bundled in a long sleeved shirt, wool sweater and coat, with a Pashmina, hat and gloves,ugg boots london sale I saw a man with his bike a the bus stop in SANDALS. He wasn’t overly well dressed for cold weather, in jeans, t-shirt and open jacket. Now, having lived in Oregon for the past decade I have come to be aware of what “true Oregonians” consider winter attire. ugg boots london shop This primarily consists of the inbred belief that flip-flops are a necessity year round, and sweaters and umbrellas are for tourists. I do not uphold this belief.ugg boots sale london I love getting dressed up for winter, layering on leggings with my sweater dress and ugg boots new york, a sweater and a jacket, and a rotating army of scarves, hats and gloves.ugg boots london stockists I don’t enjoy being frozen, especially knowing how easy a situation that is to avoid. uggs new york sale So personally, buy ugg boots london I do not consider myself a “true Oregonian.” I like umbrellas, and only wear flip flops when it’s above 75 degrees.Based on the population of Oregon, ugg new york I’m probably in the minority. Although I have come to accept that these people are just immune to cold in a way I am not, uggs new york of sale I do still think they are crazy. I’m guessing that the good folks at UGG Australia caught wind of these people because look at what they have to offer: sandals with fleece!uggs new york on sale